Williams Sports Rentals Inc. v. Willis, No. 22-16928 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this CaseIn the case involving Williams Sports Rentals Inc. (WSR) and Marian Latasha Willis, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on the scope of an injunction under the Shipowner’s Limitation of Liability Act. The case stemmed from a fatal accident involving a jet ski owned by WSR. Anticipating a lawsuit, WSR filed a complaint under the Limitation Act, which allows a vessel owner to limit its liability for accidents. The district court granted an injunction against all other lawsuits related to the accident, and the case reached the Ninth Circuit after the district court reinstated the injunction when new claims arose. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court had the authority to grant an injunction since the limitation fund was insufficient to cover all pending claims, but found the injunction to be overly broad. The court ruled that under the Anti-Injunction Act, the district court could only bar claims against the owner (WSR), not claims against other parties. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded the case with instructions to narrow the injunction so that it only barred claims against WSR.
Court Description: Shipowner’s Limitation of Liability Act In an action under the Shipowner’s Limitation of Liability Act, the panel vacated the district court’s order granting a jet ski owner an injunction against a state-court lawsuit concerning a fatal accident and remanded with instructions to narrow the injunction so that it barred only claims against the owner, not claims against other parties.
The Limitation Act limits the liability of vessel owners for accidents that occurred without their privity or * The Honorable Barbara M. G. Lynn, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. knowledge to “the value of the vessel and pending freight.” When a vessel owner files suit under the Limitation Act, injured parties must file their claims against the owner in the federal limitation proceeding.
Here, after the jet ski owner initiated the federal limitation proceeding, the district court enjoined all other lawsuits arising from the jet ski accident. Only the decedent’s mother filed a claim against the owner in the limitation proceeding. She also filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against other defendants in California state court, and she asked the district court to dissolve its injunction so that she could add the jet ski owner to her state-court lawsuit. The district court denied the motion. In prior appeals, this court vacated and then reversed with instructions to dissolve the injunction. State-court defendants subsequently filed cross-complaints against the jet ski owner for indemnity and contribution, as well as attorney’s fees, and the district court again enjoined the “continued prosecution of any legal proceedings of any nature, except in the present proceeding, in respect to any claim arising from” the accident.
The panel held that, in general, a district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to dissolve or reinstate an injunction issued under the Limitation Act, but the district court must allow a state-court lawsuit to proceed when there is only a single claimant, and that claimant enters a stipulation protecting the vessel owner’s limitation right. The panel declined to take a position on a circuit conflict regarding whether parties seeking indemnity or contribution count as separate claimants because, apart from such claims, the state-court defendants also brought claims for attorney’s fees, and, absent a stipulation, a party seeking attorney’s fees is a separate claimant. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting an injunction because, with a limitation fund of only $5,000 to cover pending claims for wrongful death, survival, indemnity, contribution, and attorney’s fees, the district court could fairly conclude that an injunction was necessary to protect the jet ski owner’s limitation right.
The panel further held, however, that the injunction was overbroad because, on its face, it prohibited the decedent’s mother from proceeding in state court on her claims against any party. The panel concluded that, under the Anti-Injunction Act, which prohibits a federal court from granting an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments, the district court could not enjoin the decedent’s mother from proceeding against anyone other than the vessel owner.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.